(5E) Martial Weapon Proficiencies

[Grouchy]

It's strange how difficult it is to obtain a single martial weapon proficiency in 5th Edition sometimes.

You are either picking a race that gives you it, dipping a level into Fighter, or burning a feat for it to gain it (Weapon Master, which also gives you three other weapons you may not want in the first place).

On the flip side, you just need one feat to gain proficiency with all medium/heavy armor.

I wonder if dropping the attribute bonus of Weapon Master and just giving proficiency in all martial weapons would be better. Or roll a single weapon proficiency into a feat of some kind (Favored Weapon, single weapon proficiency, extra +1 attack and damage rolls, maybe something else). Looking at Prodigy, I would allow the tool proficiency to be replaced with a single weapon proficiency I'm thinking.

How do you handle this in your games?

[Wynamoinen]

Originally Posted by Grouchy

How do you handle this in your games?

I haven't had to handle this issue. Can you explain what is the perceived problem here? Meaning, what is the situation that you / someone else wants to happen, but can't have under standard rules? A bard wants to use a two-handed sword? A wizard wants a longbow?

The rules are there partly to provide some amount of mechanical balance, partly to channel classes into particular combat roles, and partly for simplicity. Making changes like what you're suggesting will push against one or more of these principles. You and your table can decide whether that's good or bad.

I'm generally of the opinion that a little bit of re-fluffing goes a long way (why can't your 'bard' actually be a paladin who likes to sing? why can't your wizard's fire bolt cantrip look like a bow and arrow?), but I know some people don't like that, especially if they're used to the ways of 3.5e or PF.

[Grouchy]

Originally Posted by Wynamoinen

I haven't had to handle this issue. Can you explain what is the perceived problem here? Meaning, what is the situation that you / someone else wants to happen, but can't have under standard rules? A bard wants to use a two-handed sword? A wizard wants a longbow?

The rules are there partly to provide some amount of mechanical balance, partly to channel classes into particular combat roles, and partly for simplicity. Making changes like what you're suggesting will push against one or more of these principles. You and your table can decide whether that's good or bad.

I'm generally of the opinion that a little bit of re-fluffing goes a long way (why can't your 'bard' actually be a paladin who likes to sing? why can't your wizard's fire bolt cantrip look like a bow and arrow?), but I know some people don't like that, especially if they're used to the ways of 3.5e or PF.

This was mostly due to a inspiration about a possible human Light Cleric PC/NPC I had in mind, where his weapon of choice was a longsword. I had honestly not realized how mechanically difficult it is to get a PC a single martial weapon proficiency during character creation.

I know there are work arounds for things like you mentioned above (e.g. go Valor for the two handed weapon or pick an elf for the longbow), but it honestly doesn't seem that game breaking to allow it to be incorporated in some way, shape or form (perhaps replacing a tool proficiency from your Background for it). Especially when you consider the Gladiator background gives you an unusual weapon but you have no real proficiency in it.

[Wynamoinen]

It’s clearly not game breaking; all clerics have access to a d8 weapon, the great club. And other clerics do have proficiency in swords - war or tempest cleric. The character could be one of those instead. By my reckoning, Warding Flare is one of the best level-1 cleric abilities. Martial classes would kill for that ability (it’s basically the entirety of how the samurai subclass works). So the balancing is to not make Light clerics hand to hand beasts otherwise. By the lore, light clerics aren’t as trained in hand to hand combat.

So, is it game breaking? No. Is it unbalancing? Yeah, a The long sword’s versatile characteristic is more a concern than its base d8 damage.little. Would it alter the standard lore? Almost certainly. If you want to do it, and your players are fine with it, just do it IMHO (especially for an NPC). 5e is just not very flexible. That’s by design; it’s a feature not a bug.

[Inuvash255]

In Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, there's a section about "Custom Origins" that let you swap around stuff on your race and backgrounds; including a chart about trading out one proficiency for another, usually trading for something of the same type, or otherwise trading down (to memory: armor > skill > weapon > tool > language).

That said, if this is for an NPC - I wouldn't bother reasoning around it. NPCs are exactly what you want them to be.

[Grouchy]

Originally Posted by Inuvash255

In Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, there's a section about "Custom Origins" that let you swap around stuff on your race and backgrounds; including a chart about trading out one proficiency for another, usually trading for something of the same type, or otherwise trading down (to memory: armor > skill > weapon > tool > language).

That said, if this is for an NPC - I wouldn't bother reasoning around it. NPCs are exactly what you want them to be.

I forgot about that part, good call.